MMA Forum News And AnnouncementsOnly staff can start threads in this section but regular members can post. If you have an article you want featured please PM Dudeabides, Toxic, HitOrGetHit, K R Y, Killz, Rauno, Budhisten, or Hammerlock2.0 with a link for it to be considered to be featured.

Have we as MMA fans truly forgotten the origins of our wonderful sport? It wasn't so long ago that we were all banding together to insist that state officials reconsider their stance on this 'bloodsport.' What is it exactly that is so different between MMA and WMMA that leads to one being widely accepted and encouraged, and the other to being frowned upon and shunned from the mainstream? This blog post attempts to take an objective look at the issue and hopefully bring some much needed clarification on the matter.

MMA has a long standing history in the world, being recognized as a sport as far back as the thirty-third Olympiad. That means that two men entering an arena and using every aspect of their strength in an attempt to subdue their opponent and leave the arena as the victor has been accepted as normal and good entertainment since 648 BC. That's over two and a half millenniums. Was it this deep rooted history which sparked a revolution of sorts in America? Perhaps.

Another point to consider as contributing to the acceptance of MMA in modern society, is that it is simply a combination of many already legal sports. BJJ tournaments are quite common, Boxing has a huge presence around the world, Kickboxing is potentially devastating, yet is still legal. What makes each of the sports listed here and even the ones not listed accepted as an individual sport, yet so controversial when they are combined? It could perhaps be said that a pure boxer, or BJJ practitioner for example are safer because they are focusing on only one aspect of combat, whereas an MMA fighter who has to train in all aspects is more vulnerable to injury. This is not an answer that I agree with, just a pitch that I stumbled upon while researching.

Further to the point of controversy, why is it so much more controversial when the two athletes in the arena are women instead of men? In a society which now places an increased emphasis on equality between the sexes, it boggles my mind how this facet of society gets overlooked so frequently.

Just the same as MMA has a deep rooted history as a long standing sport, women have the unfortunate distinction of having a long standing history as domestic beings, gentle and caring with no place in an arena trying to incapacitate their opponent.
It is most likely this reason which sees WMMA as a gimmick to be hidden from the mainstream, and I for one look forward to the day that this misconception of an entire demographic can be cleared up. The UFC putting on WMMA fights, and all female organizations like Invicta FC are a great start, but there's still a lot of work to be done.

The double standard runs rampant among many MMA fans, they are fully supportive of two men who dedicate their lives to the art of fighting, yet look on with disgust as two women attempt to ply the very same craft that they have dedicated themselves to.

If you'd like to read more from Cowgirl, then her MMAF blog can be found here

__________________

"You see a mousetrap and I see free cheese and a f**king challenge" ~ Scroobius Pip

It's not just MMA, many things are different between the sexes, especially physically, and no amount of political correctness will change that. I would look upon a man attempting to bear a child in his belly with disdain too.

As far as why MMA is controversial when kickboxing, wrestling, BJJ are not, it's because of ground striking. None of the other sports allow hitting a grounded opponent, when they have very little mobility to defend themselves, and with much less protecting padding than kickboxing (much smaller gloves)... my wife is comfortable watching kickboxing and boxing, but she cringes when she sees some guy pounded into pulp from the mount, says it's too brutal. I disagree and think it's safe with the ref there to intervene, but I can see why some people would find MMA more brutal than the rest.

Interesting facts about the history of MMA in ancient times though, was a nice read.

What I think though is that people don't hate WMMA or have any negative opinion on it because the competitors are female, it's simply because they are not as good. Ronda Rousey has a nice hip toss and armbar. So does Demian Maia, and he's nothing close to the greatest of all time. Rousey Vs Carmouche was a good fight, and will keep people watching for the time being. But after the fight, people were saying "That was Rouseys biggest challenge". With no big names in WMMA really emerging, short of getting caught by something, who is really going to be the next step above that? There is no one out there besides the obvious, and THAT'S what WMMA gets a bad name. For ever Jones theres a Machida, Hendo, Evans. For ever Velasquez theres an Overeem, JDS, Werdum. There is no opposition for Rousey, because WMMA isn't good enough for there to be anyone...for the time being at least.

The reason MMA is considered more brutal is the helplessness. Someone in full mount raining down shots on a guy who just got dropped Vs someone going down for a 10 count is the big difference. MMA proves that people can continue after the get dropped, but for some people that's not nice to see. Me, I'm a just bleed kind of guy. Wanderlei / Stann all day

It isn't that some men are smaller than others, it's that they are not as good as fighting.

Having separate divisions for weights is, by definition, a double standard. If smaller men truly wanted equality they'd demand to be treated the same and fight in one openweight division.

Of course that isn't likely to happen today in the far and away biggest MMA promotion, so we are forced to believe that somehow separation means equality.

Having separate divisions for race is, by definition, a double standard. If black men truly wanted equality they'd demand to be treated the same and fight in the same division as their white counterparts.

Apples and oranges. Changing the subject completely changes the meaning of what I'm trying to say.